題目拆解
參考答案(中文版)
(a) 你認為該漫畫是出版於資本主義國家還是共產主義國家？試參考資料E，解釋你的答案。 （3分）
考生表現
表現一般。表現較佳的考生能正確指出漫畫出版於資本主義的國家，並以資料的相關線索加以解釋。表現較差的考生則誤以為漫畫來自共產主義國家，他們以為地球儀上黑色的部分是中國和蘇聯。
評分參考
L1 嘗試指出該漫畫出版於資本主義國家，惟未能恰當運用資料解釋答案。 [最多2分]
L2 能指出該漫畫出版於資本主義國家，並能恰當運用資料解釋答案。 [最多3分]
解釋︰
例︰
- 「持續不斷的紅色戰爭威脅」；只有資本主義國家才會持此說。
- 地球儀顯示一把鐮刀（代表蘇聯），南北美洲均箝在其中。換言之，漫畫家認為威脅來自共產主義，因此該漫畫應出版於資本主義國家。
參考答案
漫畫出版於資本主義國家。
資料E的漫畫中指出「我們所居住的世界」正受到「持續不斷的紅色戰爭威脅」，而紅色戰爭代表共產主義主張的世界革命。可見，漫畫抨擊日益滋長的共產主義，故可推斷出版自資本主義國家。
其次，漫畫將地球儀描繪成鐮刀，而地球儀上所反映的正是南美洲，南美洲被箝制於鐮刀之下，意味著漫畫家認為共產主義威脅全球安危，並正往南美洲等西方國家襲擊，故可推斷漫畫由資本主義國家所出版。
(b) 從資料F推斷赫魯曉夫發表這篇演說的目的。試參考資料F，解釋你的答案。（4分）
考生表現
表現欠佳。只有少數考生能夠運用資料線索推斷出赫魯曉夫該演講的目的。很多考生僅重覆資料內容，而沒有針對「目的」作答。一些表現較差的考生誤解資料，以為赫魯曉夫意圖啟動核戰。
評分參考
L1 嘗試推斷，惟未能恰當運用資料解釋答案。 [最多2分]
L2 能推斷目的，並能恰當運用資料解釋答案。 [最多4分]
目的︰
例︰
- 引起莫斯科居民對「和平共存」概念的關注。
線索︰
例︰
- 「漠視這個問題，就等於面對危險時閉起眼睛和耳朵，像駝鳥把頭埋在地下一樣。」
參考答案
赫魯曉夫發表演講的目的是請求莫斯拉居民支持和平共存原則。
資料F指出在「不同社會制度的狀態下」，發生衝突時「要成功解決」除了「和平共存」原則外，就「別無他法」，顯示赫魯曉夫認為是「和平共存」是解決當前國際危機的最好辦法，所以他演說目的是爭取民眾支持和平共存原則。
其次，資料F指出「核子戰爭可導致大幅度的毀滅」，反映當前國際社會危機重重，當衝突蘊釀至白熱化階段「才討論和平共存的問題」就「已經太遲」，錯失平息的重要時機，因此赫魯曉夫演說的目的是吸引民眾支持和平共存原則。
最後，赫魯曉夫認為「漠視」和平共存原則，就好比「面對危機時閉起眼睛和耳朵」般逃避問題，情形就像「舵鳥把頭埋在下一樣」無助解決衝突，所以他發表演說目的是宣傳和平共存原則。
(c) 「1950年代，資本主義和共產主義陣營之間的關係逐漸減少敵對。」你是否同意？試參考資料E及F，並就你所知，解釋你的答案。（6分）
考生表現
表現欠佳。只有少數考生能夠運用1950年代的史實為據，討論兩個陣營之間的關係是否逐漸「減少敵對」。部分表現較差的考生僅鋪陳兩個陣營之間衝突的史料，但沒有進一步講明有關時期內兩者的關係。
評分參考
L1 答案含混，未能有效運用資末及個人所知，及/ 或對題目有關時段涵蓋不足。 [最多2分]
L2 僅運用資料或個人所知，及/或僅涵蓋題目有關時段的一部分。[最多3分]
L3 能運用資料及個人所知，並基本上涵蓋題目有關時段。[最多6分]
同意︰
例︰
- 資料E出版於1950年代初，從中可見兩個陣營之間有劍拔弩張之勢。而到了1950年代末，就如資料F所示，和平共存的概念得到推廣。（資料）
- 韓戰結束後，兩大陣營在1950年代沒有發生過重大的衝突。（個人所知）
不同意︰
例︰
- 「核子戰爭可導致大幅度的毀滅」，說明核戰威脅在1950年代末仍迫在眉睫。（資料F）
- 軍備競賽仍然持續。列強爭相發展自己的核彈及氫彈。（個人所知）
參考答案
題目所言確能成立。
第一，1950年間資本主義跟共產陣陣營關係敵對。參考資料E，漫畫批評共產主義勢力與日俱增，世界正面對「持續不斷紅色戰爭的威脅」，呼籲各地政權同心協力對抗共產主義，反映1950年時兩大陣營關係惡劣。
第二，1950年初兩大陣營發生多場衝突。就我所知，為擴張陣營勢力，資本主義跟共產主義陣介入韓戰（1950－1953），透過援助南、北兩韓抵抗對方，顯示1950年代初期兩大陣營關係敵對。
第三，踏入1950年代中期，兩大陣營關係依然惡劣。就我所知，伴隨西德於1955年加入北大西洋公約組織，蘇聯拉攏東歐共產國家組成華沙公約組織（1955），兩大軍事聯盟互相抵抗，資本主義跟共產主義陣營呈敵對關係。
然而，踏入1950年代中期，資本主義跟共產主義陣營關係破冰。就我所知，兩大陣營首腦召開日內瓦會議（1955），商討「和平發展」、「和平共存」等原則，並相約於1960年舉行巴黎會議，顯示陣營之間磨擦日漸減少，關係改善。
第四，1950年代後期，兩大陣營關係得到改善。參考資料F，赫魯曉夫發表演說（1959）指出「和平共存」是「各國實行不同社會制度」下「解決國際問題」的最佳辦法，希望民眾支持他跟西方國家修補關係，反映彼此關係改善。
第五，資料F指赫魯曉夫認為待衝突發生時才意識討論「和平共存」的重要性（1959），屆時才跟西方國家討論和平發展就如「面對危機時閉起眼睛和耳朵」一樣逃避問題，顯示蘇聯樂於跟西方改善關係，兩大陣營於1950年代末關係得到改善。
所以，題目所言成立。
參考答案(英文版)
(a) Do you think that the cartoon was published in a capitalist or communist state? Explain your answer with reference to Source E. (3 marks)
Candidates’ performance
Performance was average. The more competent candidates could point out that the cartoon was published in a capitalist state, with an explanation using clues from the Source. The weak candidates thought that the cartoon was published in a communist state; they misunderstood the continents shown in the globe represented China and the Soviet Union.
Marking Scheme
L1 Attempts to point out that the cartoon was published in a capitalist state, but unable to explain the answer with due reference to the Source. [max. 2] L2 Points out that the cartoon was published in a capitalist state, and explains the answer with due reference to the Source. [max. 3] Explanation: e.g.
- ‘Constant red war threat’; only a capitalist state would hold this view.
- The globe showed a sickle (representing the USSR) containing north and south America. In other words, the cartoonist thought that threat came from communism, and the cartoon should be published in a capitalist state.
Suggested Answer
The cartoon was published in a capitalist state.
According to Source E, the cartoon stated that there was “Constant red war threat” in “The world we live in”, while red war represented the world revolution advocated by communism. Therefore, the cartoon was criticizing communism that was growing and hence the cartoon was published in a capitalist state.
Moreover, the cartoon depicted the globe as a sickle and the globe was showing the map of South America. South America was being threatened by the sickle, implying that the cartoonist believed communism was spreading to Western countries like South America and posing threats to world peace. Thus, the cartoon was published in a capitalist state.
(b) What can you infer from Source F about Khrushchev’s purpose in delivering this speech? Explain your answer with reference to Source F. (4 marks)
Candidates’ performance
Performance was poor. Only a minority of candidates could make good use of the Source to infer Khrushchev’s purpose of making the speech. Many candidates merely repeated the Source in their answers, without inferring the ‘purpose’. Some weak candidates misread the Source; they thought Khrushchev intended to start a nuclear war.
Marking Scheme
L1 Shows attempts to infer, but unable to explain the answer with due reference to the Source. [max. 2] L2 Infers the purpose and explain the answer with due reference to the Source. [max. 4] Purpose: e.g.
- To arouse the attention of the Moscow residents to the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’. Clues: e.g.
- ‘To disregard this is to shut one’s eyes and ears and bury one’s head like the ostrich does when in danger.’
Suggested Answer
Khrushchev’s purpose in delivering this speech was to attract Moscow residents to support the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’.
Source F stated that under “different social systems”, conflicts would not be “resolved successfully in any other way than on principles of peaceful coexistence”. It reflects that Khrushchev believed that ‘peaceful coexistence’ was the best way to resolve the existing international crisis. Therefore, his purpose was to attract people’s support of the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’.
Moreover, Source F pointed out that “agreat deal would perish in a nuclear war”, showing that the international community was facing serious crises. Khrushchev suggested that “it would be too late to discuss what peaceful coexistence means” when the crises had become heated and chances to settle the problem would be missed. Thus, his purpose was to attract people’s support of the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’.
Lastly, Khrushchev thought that to ‘disregard” the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’ was to “shut one’s eyes and ears and bury one’s head like the ostrich does when in danger” and it could not help resolve the conflicts. Thus, his purpose was to attract people’s support of the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’.
(c) ‘In the 1950s, the relationship between the capitalist and communist blocs gradually became less hostile.’ Do you agree? Explain your answer with reference to Sources E and F, and using your own knowledge. (6 marks)
Candidates’ performance
Performance was poor. Only a minority of candidates could discuss whether the relationship between the two blocs ‘became less hostile’, using facts from the 1950s. some weak candidates merely narrated on the conflicts between the two blocs, without making any attempts to elaborate on their relationship.
Marking Scheme
L1 Vague answer, unable to effectively refer to the Sources and own knowledge, and/or with inadequate coverage of the period in question. [max. 2] L2 Merely refers to the Sources or own knowledge, and/or covers only part of the period in question. [max. 3] L3 Refers to both Sources and own knowledge, and basically covers the whole period in question. [max. 6] Agree: e.g.
- Source E, which was published in the early 1950s, suggested imminent confrontation between the two blocs. Towards the end of the 1950s, the idea of peaceful co-existence was promoted, as reflected in Source F. (Source) - After the Korean War, there was no major confrontations between the two blocs in the 1950s. (own knowledge) Disagree: e.g.
- ‘A great deal would perish in a nuclear war’ suggested that the nuclear threat was still imminent in the late 1950s. (Source F) - Armament race was still under way. The powers competed to develop their own nuclear and hydrogen bombs. (own knowledge)
Suggested Answer
I agree with this statement. Firstly, the capitalist and communist blocs were hostile to each other in the 1950. According to Source E, the cartoon criticized the growing influence communism that the world was facing “constant red war threat”. The cartoon advocated that the regimes around the world should cooperate with one another to counter the threat of communism, reflecting the hostile relationship between the two blocs. Secondly, several conflicts occurred between the two blocs in the early 1950s. According to my own knowledge, in order to expand their influence, the capitalist and communist blocs had intervened in the Korean War (1950-1953). The two blocs confronted against each other through providing assistance to South Korea and North Korea. Thus, the two blocs were hostile to each other in the early 1950s. Thirdly, in the mid-1950s, the relationship between the two blocs remained poor. According to my own knowledge, since West Germany joined the NATO in 1955 and the USSR established the Warsaw Pact Alliance (1955) with communist Eastern European countries, the two military alliances confronted against each other. The capitalist and communist blocs were still hostile to each other. However, the capitalist and communist blocs started breaking the ice in the mid-1950s. According to my own knowledge, the leaders of the two blocs had called the Geneva Conference (1955) to discuss the ideas of ‘peaceful development’ and ‘peaceful coexistence’. They also planned to convene the Paris Summit in 1960, implying that the two blocs were improving their relationship by attempting to reduce conflicts. Fourthly, in the late 1950s, the relationship between the two blocs had been improved. According to Source F, Khrushchev stated that ‘peaceful coexistence’ was the best way to resolve the existing international crisis “in conditions when there are states with different social systems” when delivering his speech. It shows that Khrushchev hoped to seek support from the public for improving relationship with the West, reflecting that the relationship between the two blocs had been improved. Lastly, according to Source F, Khrushchev thought that to ‘disregard” the idea of ‘peaceful coexistence’ was to “shut one’s eyes and ears and bury one’s head like the ostrich does when in danger”. It indicates that the USSR was eager to improve its relationship with the West and thus the two blocs had improved their relation in the late 1950s. Therefore, I agree with the statement.